Ford limits where workers can smoke -oh brother

STLToday.com ^ | 11/04/2003 | Todd C. Frankel

[SheLion]

The Ford auto plant in Hazelwood started this week to restrict where its 2,500 workers can smoke on the job, ending the decades-long practice of allowing workers to light up almost anywhere.

The change was prompted by pressure from state officials and anti-smoking groups, who claimed the Ford policy violated Missouri's Clean Indoor Air law.

[CSM]

Then why can some people grow out of allergies? At the same time others can grow into the same allergies? (Your answer does show how contracting an allergy later in life is possible, after the exposure limit is reached for the person predisposed to get the allergy.) It has been shown that pet owner's have children with lower instances of allergies to animals.

I am not a biologist or a doctor, I am just connecting the dots. I don't see you offering alternatives to my theories. Do you have any?

[Ditter]

I am not a doctor either just a life long allergy sufferer who has learned a bit from my doctors. Rather than growing out of allergies, they will change. I thought I had grown out of my allergies at 18 but in my middle 20's they came back, but they were different. Allergy treatment does consist of giving very small doses of the offending substances in a controlled manner over a very long time. I had treatment for 15 years & I am still allergic to dust, mold, pollen, etc. my reactions are just not as violent as before. It has nothing to do with dirt or germs.

[Poohbah]

Shall we also include crack cocaine smoking as one of our cherished"rights" also?

Some folks here do just that.

[Just another Joe]

My friend C's docs had some SHS data that I think any fair minded person would consider troubling at a minimum.

I would want to see the data and the studies before I comment on any data on ETS.

Too many times we have been told that the definitive study is coming out only to find out that the study was biased before it ever began.

[realpatriot71]

Smoking at work is a right? Hardly! Yeah, this is a BIG Constitutional "set back" when an employer can tell his/her employees that they can or cannot smoke on work property. You want to inhale that noxious crap at home? GREAT! You want to smell like death? GREAT! Enjoy your personal liberty, but please quit trying to make those of us who don't like your nasty habit, enjoy your smoke and your smell.

Get real!

[Quix]

Per my post above . . . #157

---

However, even Philip Morris is now, on their website, is saying the public should be guided by public health officials regarding exposure to SHS (recently they also finally conceded that smoking itself causes serious illness.) I have cut and pasted the language from the PM website below, and you can go to

http://www.pmusa.com/health_issues/secondhand_smoke.asp

as the source.

There are also at least two studies I am aware of that have now clinically demonstrated cardiac output changes as a result of exposure to only 30 minutes of exposure to SHS. I have included links to one of these studies in this email, and have also attached a PDF file that speaks to this.


Link to the summary of July 2001 JAMA article regarding the "Acute Effects of Passive Smoking on the Coronary Circulation in Healthy Young Adults."

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/286/4/436

Another excellent site with numerous links to SHS exposure studies, and documents about what the tobacco industry knew, when they knew, and how they continue to try to confuse the issue is the Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights website at www.no-smoke.org. Click on the "second hand smoke" page.


Another abstract from the Tobacco Control Journal documents how much higher the levels of exposure to SHS is in bars;

http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/12/3/333.

The article is entitled "Exposure to secondhand smoke and excess lung cancer mortality risk among workers in the "5 B's": bars, bowling alleys, billiard halls, betting establishments, and bingo parlours; by M Siegel and M Skeer; Boston University School of Public Health, Social and Behavioral Sciences Department, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

Stanton Glantz's site about second hand smoke and restaurants also has a number of excellent links:

http://www.tobaccoscam.ucsf.edu/resource/resource_health.cfm

including a powerpoint presentation on the sharp decrease of heart attacks when Helena, MT went smoke-free, followed by an increase back to the previous level once the smoke-free ordinance was suspended;

http://www.tobaccoscam.ucsf.edu/pdf/chicago_final_rps.ppt

(this can take awhile to download and open).

---

The Helena, MT study alone is sobering enough.

[SheLion]

Smoking at work is a right? Hardly! Yeah, this is a BIG Constitutional "set back" when an employer can tell his/her employees that they can or cannot smoke on work property. You want to inhale that noxious crap at home? GREAT! You want to smell like death? GREAT! Enjoy your personal liberty, but please quit trying to make those of us who don't like your nasty habit, enjoy your smoke and your smell.

Get real!

Listen, how old are you? 14?  Your talking personal choice here.  YOU think it's a nasty habit, WE love it.  I am sure YOU have habits that "I" would find disgusting.  And I will go up against your personal hygiene ANY day!

YOU get real kid!

Smoking at work is a right? Hardly! Yeah, this is a BIG Constitutional "set back" when an employer can tell his/her employees that they can or cannot smoke on work property. You want to inhale that noxious crap at home? GREAT! You want to smell like death? GREAT! Enjoy your personal liberty, but please quit trying to make those of us who don't like your nasty habit, enjoy your smoke and your smell.

Get real!

Listen, how old are you? 14?  Your talking personal choice here.  YOU think it's a nasty habit, WE love it.  I am sure YOU have habits that "I" would find disgusting.  And I will go up against your personal hygiene ANY day!

YOU get real kid!

[realpatriot71]

Listen sweetie, I DON'T insist on bringing any particular behavior into the workplace, particularly any of my own personal vices. You don't have some sort of "right" to do whatever behavior you please at work. It's the perogative of the employer. You may "love it". Great! I'm not trying to stop you from contaminating your God-given body with toxic chemicals. As an adult you may, in my opinion, put whatever pollutants into your body that you want, but don't ask me or anyone else to smell that nastiness at work. I don't crap in your yard, so don't crap in mine, capiche'?

[CSM]

"Listen sweetie, I DON'T insist on bringing any particular behavior into the workplace, particularly any of my own personal vices. You don't have some sort of "right" to do whatever behavior you please at work. It's the perogative of the employer."

Go back and read the article. The government legislation is the driving factor in this decision, the owner of the property didn't have a choice.

[Just another Joe]

The Helena, MT study alone is sobering enough.

The Helena, MT study is pure junk science. Nothing more and nothing less. If you look at the records, which people have done, you will find other periods of the same, or longer, duration when the numbers have done the same thing without any difference in smoking at all.

As for studies that have now clinically demonstrated cardiac output changes as a result of exposure to only 30 minutes of exposure to SHS.

Cardiac output also changes as a result of eating a meal, kissing the one you love, exercising, etc.
Don't get me wrong, there may be a factual basis to the thought that cardiac output changes when exposed to ETS. That doesn't mean that it is necessarily going to kill you OR take years off your life.

Oh, and one more thing, if you're going to use Stanton Glantz as a source, you really should do a little more research. This is the same man that said it would take a tornado, 300+ MPH winds, to scour a room of ETS.
Anything that comes out of Glantz's mouth, or from his website, is suspect IMO. The man has an irrational hatred of smokers.

[realpatriot71]

The government legislation is the driving factor in this decision, the owner of the property didn't have a choice

That's rather unfortunate

[CSM]

It is more than unfortunate. It is a trampling on our rights. Private property is now public property. What else will we force onto property owners? Is this water warm?

[StriperSniper]

Look out for falling engines!

[Quix]

Thanks for your kind reply.

INteresting about MT.

It's not a biggy that there are OTHER reasons for elevated heart output around smoke. It's significant that it's ALSO true about SHS.

Will pass your msg to my friend and see what he has to say.

[CSM]

Check this out:

http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/second.htm

or this:

http://193.78.190.200/smokersclub/studies.html

You might become more enlightened regarding junk science.

[Quix]

Thanks for the links. Will put them in the Q.

Are they for or against SHS?

[Publius6961]

You're well on your way to being another insufferable A*****e.
Congratulations.

[CSM]

"Are they for or against SHS?"

They are neither for nor against SHS. Instead, they show the summaries of the studies.

[cavtrooper21]

Thank you,
..and have a Nice day.

[Quix]

SOUNDS fair.